Rather newbie question

Questions and Answers : GPU applications : Rather newbie question
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Jens
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 99
Posts: 51
Credit: 153,539
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 852455 - Posted: 11 Jan 2009, 22:01:12 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jan 2009, 22:03:20 UTC

Sorry for this rather stupid question, but now that CUDA is working, I have the following situation:
After creating a cc_config-file (I have a dual-core processor), there are two tasks calculated by the CPUs (AP) and one by the GPU (S@H). I suppose, that's the way it's meant to be?

The problem is, that the two AP-units seem to be calculated at a very low speed. Now they are estimated to be finished in 180 hrs. If I'm not mistaken normally it was 80. Am I doing something wrong?

The problem: When I do it without the cc_config-file, then only 50% of my CPU is used.
Best regards
Jens
ID: 852455 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 852457 - Posted: 11 Jan 2009, 22:09:09 UTC - in response to Message 852455.  
Last modified: 11 Jan 2009, 22:09:47 UTC

Most likely you did all just right. It's BOINC error in estimation of time to complete.
Try to look at completion time and % done after few hours. AP has pretty linear processing advance (I mean % per hour pretty stable) so you could estimate completion time by yourself.
Hope it will be much less than BOINC thinks (it improve its predictions too after few AP task completion).
BTW, do you use opt AP or stock one?
ID: 852457 · Report as offensive
Profile Gundolf Jahn

Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 00
Posts: 3184
Credit: 446,358
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 852471 - Posted: 11 Jan 2009, 22:41:12 UTC - in response to Message 852455.  

...The problem: When I do it without the cc_config-file, then only 50% of my CPU is used.

Nah, it's about 50.3% to 50.6% ;-)

(And with your 2+1 configuration, those 3-6% might be missing for feeding the GPU :-)

Gruß,
Gundolf
ID: 852471 · Report as offensive
Jens
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 99
Posts: 51
Credit: 153,539
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 853697 - Posted: 15 Jan 2009, 6:52:33 UTC - in response to Message 852457.  

Most likely you did all just right. It's BOINC error in estimation of time to complete.
Try to look at completion time and % done after few hours. AP has pretty linear processing advance (I mean % per hour pretty stable) so you could estimate completion time by yourself.
Hope it will be much less than BOINC thinks (it improve its predictions too after few AP task completion).
BTW, do you use opt AP or stock one?


Hey Raistmer,
well - looks right know, like I'd need about 120 hrs per AP-WU. This is significantly more than before, if I'm not mistaken. Any idea on what might be the reason?
I use the AP, that was sent to me by SETI - Astropulse 5.00
Best regards
Jens
ID: 853697 · Report as offensive
Profile Geek@Play
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,146,931
RAC: 0
United States
Message 853704 - Posted: 15 Jan 2009, 7:19:21 UTC

I'm seeing the same thing.
20% to 25% increase in the AstroPulse actual crunch times than before CUDA.

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....
ID: 853704 · Report as offensive
Profile Geek@Play
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,146,931
RAC: 0
United States
Message 853784 - Posted: 15 Jan 2009, 14:31:58 UTC

Uhm..........

This morning the AstroPulse times seem normal. Perhaps my eyes got crossed up last night.

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....
ID: 853784 · Report as offensive

Questions and Answers : GPU applications : Rather newbie question


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.